The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is the church in crisis

I may have some understanding of why some Christians are worried about our political landscape hurting the church. I mostly poo-pawed it as coming from the progressive Christianity people. Now, maybe I think the church should not only be concern from the progressive wing, but also some on the conservative side as well.

I ran into a podcast on YouTube where the host (a pastor who left the Acts 29 group of churches) and a woman Christian reporter with the Daily Wire. They were discussing 10 prominent Christian names on whether they belong to the progressive, pietism, or preservation side. I mostly agreed with them, but the more I heard them I started to think they were more interested in them being vocal on cultural issues, than for their biblical based doctrine. Finally, when they got to the last name it became obvious to me. They gave Doug Wilson glaring reviews for his standing up for biblical truths. The host did mention that Wilson was black-listed for his views on Federal Vision, but said that is something (paraphrasing) minor in the big scope of things. The names were Keller, Piper, Ortland, MacArthur, R Moore, Chandler, Sproul, and Wilson (I forget 2 of them).

Has Federal Vision and other issues like it become non-issues theologically in today’s church? Only engaging the culture is important, even with bad theology?

I am a fan of a Christian program called ‘The Sword & the Trowel Podcast’.

Your questions reminded me of last week’s Podcast.
It is only about 1/2 hour long. But you might find it helpful.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXMbCWFEKybItoVolKlJ6I7eTXQQTGtr8

As for Doug Wilson, I am not a fan; because of things like FV and Paedo-Communion.
However, although I do not look to him on cultural issues.
I do understand that he takes many of the same stands that some of the people I follow take.

You mentioned about 8 names of which I am quite familiar with.
However, the names Sproul, MacArthur and Wilson are on the opposite sides of most of the other names you mentioned.
If you watch the link I provided, I think you will catch my meaning.

Tom

When the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone becomes "minor in the big scope of things" then biblical Christianity is doomed to destruction according to Scripture. HORDS of people on conservative radio are so incredibly ignorant of what Christianity really is and embrace everything but biblical Christianity. Of course, this is not surprising given what the Spirit inspired men to write about the end times, right? Putting Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia and Soli Deo Gloria as "minor" is to embrace certain death. One may win a battle for 'equal rights', 'right to life', 'free speech', 'right to bear arms, ad nauseam, all which are worthy of preservation. But what good is it for a man's soul if he fails to be right with God? I've said it far too many times and lately I've heard a few others echo my sentiments: 95% of those who now profess to be Christians are yet unregenerate, dead in sins and are destined to eternal hell lest the LORD God shows them mercy and the Spirit creates in them a heart of flesh and they repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ with a true living faith. The true disciples of faith of which Scripture calls faithful followers of Christ perished due to their FAITH, not their views on social issues. They forsook all and desired to live a life of holiness and offering up to God biblical worship with a firm determination to live and die in Him knowing that a New Heaven and New Earth awaited them at the end of the narrow path they walked.

Also concerning Doug Wilson.
A friend recently gave me a link to him answering quite a few of the accusations against him.
Taken at face value; he does seem to have answered them and put to rest those accusations.
He says he believes in the essential doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Yet, regardless of the fact he has distanced himself from the name Federal Vision. Why did he sign the joint declaration concerning FV?

Again I have no dog in this fight, because Doug Wilson is not someone I follow.

Unfortunately, I know lots of friends and aquantences on both sides of this fight. What I find strange about that; is they all believe in Reformer theology and other than Wilson, agree with each other.

One particular close friend of mine is of the opinion that after researching the issue a lot. That many are misrepresenting Wilson.

No, I am not saying YOU made that statement but rather someone else did and you relayed it here: Now, as to the quote, the word that should be given much scrutiny, especially knowing how these FV heretics communicate (read: deception) is "essential" doctrine. So, playing the Devil's advocate, I could assent to the basic statement that, 'justification is by faith alone in Christ alone' and STILL advocate FV, i.e., adding that it is faith alone AND by works (the keeping of the covenant law) that saves. This is very much akin to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Given how Wilson has written on such issues over many years and how convoluted (by intention I assert) he states his beliefs, I have absolutely no confidence that this man has actually repented and has totally rejected all or anything of Federal Vision, NPP, ad nauseam. The Evil One is a master of deception and counterfeiting the truth to lead people astray and away from the actual truth of God's word.

Pilgrim

Are you stating that Wilson believes in “justification by faith alone in Christian alone and …”.
If so, that is something that Wilson denied in the video I was talking about.

Yet if I understand what FV teaches, “and..,”, is exactly what they teach.

I am concerned about the fact Wilson did sign the joint statement of faith on FV.
Before I could believe him, I would need his to clear up that matter, by completely
going against FV.

NO, I am NOT implying that Wilson actually believes the historic formula but uses that formula to deceive many by redefining terms, etc., as is the common practice of all heretics from the beginning of time. Karl Barth was a master of doing this and deceived myriad people into embracing neo-Calvinism, which is a damnable heresy.

As I stated above, UNLESS Wilson TOTALLY repudiates the teachings of FV, NPP, etc. and positively affirms the historic doctrine of justification in its true meaning, then I have no confidence that he has repented of his sin(s) and remains an enemy of the Church and of God himself.

Pilgrim
You have made your stand very clear now on Wilson.
Here is my dilemna.

The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. Is perhaps the most important doctrine of the Reformation.

It has been reported by many that Doug Wilson does not hold to this doctrine; regardless of the fact he claims to; because he hold to FV, and until he repudiates FV completely we should consider him a heretic.

In response to this, Wilson has set of do just that; while adding a few caveats.
For example, he indicated he holds to a nuanced view of FV; and rejects others parts of it.

I set out to uncover the truth behind these accusations and did so, not really wanting to, because Doug Wilson is not someone I follow.
Yet, he seems to be someone that is followed or avoided by many of my Reformed friends, aquantences, and theologians.
What I find very odd about this, is both sides are in agreement theology wise. Yet disagree with each other about what Wilson believes.

One of my best friend’s who is actually a fan of Wilson is encouraging me to research the matter myself. Adding that if I come to conclude that Wilson is indeed a heretic, I better be willing to stop following some of my favourite theologians and pastors.

I am not sure I would go quite that far. However, I do know that some of them, speak on occasion at Wilson’s Church.
Including one of my favourites, Voddie Baucham. Someone that I know would not do so, if he was convinced Wilson did not believe in sola-Fide.

Here is a section where Doug Wilson dealt with some accusations.

[quote]3. Kevin says that FV rejects the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. But I affirm the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, and insist, together with Machen, that “there is no hope without it.” This is how I put it twelve years ago. “Classic Reformed theology calls it the active obedience of Christ. What it means, simply, is Christ for us. In your salvation, you were not given a fraction of Christ, but rather were given all that He ever did . . . In the life of Jesus, Israel finally does it right, and He does it right on behalf of all Israel, all who are gathered to Him by faith” (God Rest Ye Merry, p. 50, 2012). So agreement #3: Kevin affirms the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. So do I.

4. Kevin says that in FV theology, works are a condition of final justification, and not corroborating evidence that the person has been justified. This is yet another point of agreement between Kevin and me. As I put it way back in 2007, “I hold that if any of my good works attempted to contribute to my justification before God, then they should be slathered with bacon grease and thrown into hell” (The Auburn Avenue Chronicles, p. 398). So agreement #4: Kevin says that good works are a corroborating evidence of justification. I agree.[\quote]

My friend, said that there are a few reasons why Wilson will not totally repudiate FV. Mainly because he still holds to a few aspects of it. Such as Paedo-communion and he accepts Roman Catholic baptism as valid; regardless of if the fact that he believes Roman Catholicism is heretical.
Obviously, they disagree with Wilson on these things, however they do not believe they are essential issues.

Again, my friend believes should I believe Wilson is a heretic; I should not be following people who do not.

To throw a wrench into this, another Reformed friend of mine chimed in and said that not only is Wilson a heretic; but he is wrong on culture as well.
I found that to be interesting, because Wilson promotes many of the same books on culture, that many of my favourite theologians promote.

Tom

1. This is exactly what I stated above re: heretics using confusing and deceptive language to avoid the accusation of not embracing the truth. Anyone who knows a wit of theology, specifically the doctrine of justification by faith knows that the "active obedience of Christ" is specifically the life of Christ on earth that was in perfect harmony with the law of God; aka: perfect holiness, the life required by God by every man, woman and child in thought, word and deed. It is THIS, perfect righteousness that is imputed to the believer.
2. What does he mean in his answer that "In the life of Jesus, Israel finally does it right? The word "Israel" in the Bible has c. 5 different meanings. The singular, God-man, the incarnate Son of God, the second Adam, Who came to be the substitute for all whom God predestined to salvation and fulfill both their lack of perfect righteousness (active obedience) and to fulfill the penalty of their transgression of the law, eternal death, by dying as their substitute on the cross (passive obedience). This He did thus securing absolutely ALL that was necessary for their redemption. Soooo, again further, what does Wilson mean "and He does it right on behalf of all Israel, all who are gathered to Him by faith."? The elect are not 'gathered to Him by faith", but rather they are gathered to Christ by and the consequence of the sovereign work of regeneration and irresistible grace of the Holy Spirit. The RESULT of the sovereign work of God is the conviction of sin, repentance of sin(fulness), and a hearty believing upon Christ, which unites them to Him and His work on their behalf. Thus they are adopted as sons of God and the kingdom.

I was once told a axiom which I find to be indispensable and necessary for anyone when explaining/defending the faith: You must be precise, profound and cogent. The above alleged statements from Wilson do not meet any of those three elements. And I suggest that Wilson has a loooooong history of speaking/writing in confusing terms in order to hide his 'unique' views which are at best on the fringe of orthodoxy and in the case of his views on FV, NPP... heretical and worthy of condemnation.

3. As for your personal dilemma, I would ask you to examine yourself in all honesty and if you are more concerned with what others think of you and your views vs. being concerned that Doug Wilson is a wolve in sheep's clothing and is quite successful in deceiving some of your "friends" and/or some you might esteem as faithful? Personally, I would not waste my time with this matter. And UNTIL/IF Wilson totally repudiates ALL of FV, NPP, etc. and articulates in detail that he now holds to the historic doctrine of justification by faith AS UNDERSTOOD AND TAUGHT THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES by the historic Reformed churches and stated in their respective Confessions and Catechisms, this man should not be given the time of day and avoided as an enemy of God and the Church as is taught in Scripture.

Pilgrim

In your number 3. If you think I am a person that worries about what others think of me and my views. You do not know me very well. Regardless of the fact I cut my Reformed teeth here.

You might remember, many years ago, I was convicted that Calvinism was biblical. Yet I knew that it was going to cost me in terms of family members and friends should I embrace it.
Those were some very painful times in my life and looking back I was correct; but well worth it.

On the Wilson issue, as I have stated I have friends on both sides of the issue.
Many very knowledgable on both sides.

I will be doing a bit more research, which includes what you just said.

Perhaps, I would have been better off leaving the Wilson issue alone, because he is not someone I follow.

Tom